48 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1896–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Town of Harrison v. County of Westchestergreen2 sentences1979The argument that they are one and the same was rejected in Town of Harrison v County of Westchester ( 13 NY2d 258, 265 ), where the court said: "The argument is, in effect, that, since the Legislature has there been held empowered to authorize the condemnation of property for a 'public use’ even though some of the property is to be leased to private parties, the same interpretation of the standard of 'public use’ must necessarily be applied in determining the tax status of such property. 1975The Court of Appeals rejected that contention in these words ( 13 NY2d 258, 265, 266 , supra): "While the argument may have superficial appeal, it cannot withstand analysis since the two situations are completely disparate as respects both the policy considerations and the issues involved. | 1 | 2 |
Schumacher v. Secretary Of Health And Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2022The legislative history supports that interpretation ( see Schumacher v Secretary of Dept. of Health and Human Servs. , 2 F3d 1128, 1132-1134 [Fed Cir 1993] [concluding that the legislative history supports a narrow interpretation of the bar on civil actions]; Amendola v Secretary, Dept. of Health and Human Servs. , 989 F2d 1180, 1185-1186 [Fed Cir 1993] ["Congress clearly intended by the amendment to apply the [VICP] to pediatricians who administered a vaccine as well as to the manufacturer who made it"]). | 1 | 1 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettsgreen1 sentence2014In general, forensic laboratory procedures, which may involve the application of expertise involving the handling of the evidence to be tested, preparing an instrument to perform an analysis, the procedures followed to conduct the analysis, and the interpretation of test results, represent a significant amount of information “meet for cross-examination” (Bullcoming, 564 US at —, 131 S Ct at 2714; see also Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 557 US 305 , 311 n 1 [2009] [“chain of custody, authenticity of the sample, (and the) accuracy of the testing device” are salient matters for authenticating tes | 1 | 1 |
Rentways, Inc. v. O'Neill Milk & Cream Co.green1 sentence2012This interpretation of the clause best accords with the remainder of the lease (see Rentways, Inc. v O’Neill Milk & Cream Co., 308 NY 342, 347 [1955]). | 1 | 1 |
Kramarik v. Travelersgreen1 sentence2009Such a result would have obviously been at odds with Bennett’s “reasonable expectations as a businessperson seeking insurance coverage for injuries resulting from the operation of his [painting] business” (Kramarik v Travelers, 25 AD3d 960, 962 [2006]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ohrensteingreen2 sentences2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect 2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Brewstergreen1 sentence2004(Oates v Marino, 106 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 1984] [Senator’s allegedly defamatory remarks made during public hearing were protected under clause]; see also United States v Brewster, 408 US 501, 507 [1972] [“(t)he immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause . . . (exist) to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators”].) While the interpretation of the clause has been expanded to incorporate some legislative activity beyond floor speeches and House debate, the act in question must still be legislative in nature. | 1 | 1 |
Straniere v. Silvergreen2 sentences2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect 2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect | 1 | 1 |
Gravel v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect | 1 | 1 |
Hutchinson v. Proxmiregreen1 sentence2004Thus, the Court of Appeals has said that the clause applies to committee meetings and hearings that do not occur on the floor of the House (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54; see also Matter of Straniere v Silver, 218 AD2d 80, 83 [3d Dept 1996]), but “does not extend to acts which a legislator performs to secure support in the community or to insure reelection, such as giving speeches in the community, issuing newsletters and press releases, or arranging for the publication of books.” (People v Ohrenstein, 77 NY2d at 54, citing Hutchinson v Proxmire, 443 US 111 [1979].) In order to be protect | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Brattongreen1 sentence1997As a matter of public policy, the Police Department’s interpretation of rule 5.2.8 (b) is eminently sensible” (Matter of Garcia v Bratton, 225 AD2d 123, 127). | 1 | 1 |
| Auerbach v. Bennettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whiteside v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. Wyman
green
2 sentences1996This interpretation of the rule is not irrational, and should therefore be upheld (see, e.g., Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434 ; McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729 ; Matter of Henry v Coughlin, 214 AD2d 673 ). 1979It has been held "that the construction given statutes and regulations by the agency responsible for their administration, if not irrational or unreasonable, should be upheld” (Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438 ). | 2 | 1979–1996 |
Crucen v. Leary
green
1 sentence2022Our prior decision in Crucen v Leary ( 55 AD3d 510 [2008]) is not to the contrary. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Nestorowich v. Ricotta
green
1 sentence2020An interpretation of the rule so as to categorize cessation or continuance of the same treatment as a choice "between or among medically acceptable alternatives" contemplated under Nestorowich would expand the application of the charge and "would transform it from a protection against second-guessing of genuine exercises of professional judgment in treatment or diagnosis into a cloak for professional misfeasance" ( Nestorowich v Ricotta , 97 NY2d at 399 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
green
1 sentence2012Consequently, the Justice Court should have proceeded to examine the PHMSA’s interpretation of the rule (see Coeur Alaska, Inc., 557 US at 278 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Paragas v. Comsewogue Union Free School District
green
1 sentence2009Accordingly, the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was not the defendants’ alleged failure to issue a proper instruction regarding the act of “highsticking” (see generally Paragas v Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 65 AD3d 1111 [2009]; cf. Mei Kay Chan v City of Yonkers, 34 AD3d 540 [2006]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mei Kay Chan v. City of Yonkers
green
1 sentence2009Accordingly, the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was not the defendants’ alleged failure to issue a proper instruction regarding the act of “highsticking” (see generally Paragas v Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 65 AD3d 1111 [2009]; cf. Mei Kay Chan v City of Yonkers, 34 AD3d 540 [2006]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Oates v. Marino
green
1 sentence2004(Oates v Marino, 106 AD2d 289 [1st Dept 1984] [Senator’s allegedly defamatory remarks made during public hearing were protected under clause]; see also United States v Brewster, 408 US 501, 507 [1972] [“(t)he immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause . . . (exist) to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators”].) While the interpretation of the clause has been expanded to incorporate some legislative activity beyond floor speeches and House debate, the act in question must still be legislative in nature. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Seidlitz v. . Auerbach
green
1 sentence2002In Seidlitz v Auerbach (supra), the liquidated damages provision was invalidated where the lease term at issue provided that the tenant would forfeit its entire security deposit, representing more than one year’s rent, for any contractual default, ranging from the failure to pay rent to the failure to pay a $17 insurance premium. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bourgeois v. North Shore University Hospital at Forest Hills
green
1 sentence2002Hosp. at Forest Hills, 290 AD 2d 525 ; Fhima v Maimonides Med. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
New York City Friends of Ferrets v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1999The determination whether ferrets are in fact “a species which is wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm” (24 RCNY 161.01 [a]) also was left open in New York City Friends of Ferrets v City of New York (876 F Supp 529, supra). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance
green
1 sentence1997Co. ( 203 AD2d 83 ) that the additional insured clause does not focus on the cause of the accident but upon the "general nature of the operation in the course of which the injury was sustained” (supra, at 83), reads out of the endorsement the key words limiting coverage for the additional insured, insofar as relevant to the issue at hand, to "its liability * * * for 'your work’ for or on behalf of the Additional Insured.” * The majority interprets the endorsement to provide additional insured coverage as long as the party making a claim against the additional insured sustained injuries in the | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tomlinson v. Ward
green
1 sentence1996(Tomlinson v Ward, 110 AD2d 537, 538 , affd 66 NY2d 771 .) While petitioner was on modified duty with the Motor Transport Division she was not performing the duties of a police officer since her weapon and shield had been removed and her merit and fitness as a police officer could not be evaluated. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wegman v. Wegman
green
1 sentence1996The court had concluded that while the cases had established commencement date rule for "active” assets and a trial date rule for "passive” assets, the cases did not support a strict interpretation of the rule and that the trial court has the obligation to review each case on its own facts (see, Wegman v Wegman, 123 AD2d 220 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
MATTER OF TOMLINSON v. Ward
green
1 sentence1996(Tomlinson v Ward, 110 AD2d 537, 538 , affd 66 NY2d 771 .) While petitioner was on modified duty with the Motor Transport Division she was not performing the duties of a police officer since her weapon and shield had been removed and her merit and fitness as a police officer could not be evaluated. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Henry v. Coughlin
neutral
1 sentence1996This interpretation of the rule is not irrational, and should therefore be upheld (see, e.g., Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434 ; McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729 ; Matter of Henry v Coughlin, 214 AD2d 673 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McSparron v. McSparron
green
1 sentence1996That analysis was reaffirmed by the McSparron decision (supra) In McSparron the Court of Appeals held that the active/passive formulation "may prove too rigid to be useful” and the distinctions "should be regarded only as helpful guideposts and not as immutable rules of law” (McSparron v McSparron, supra, 87 NY2d, at 288 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McGowan v. Burstein
green
1 sentence1996This interpretation of the rule is not irrational, and should therefore be upheld (see, e.g., Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434 ; McGowan v Burstein, 71 NY2d 729 ; Matter of Henry v Coughlin, 214 AD2d 673 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Alexander v. Alexander green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Batcheldor v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1993(Cf., Alexander v Alexander, 42 Ohio Misc 2d 30, 537 NE2d 1310 , appeal dismissed 54 Ohio App 3d 77, 560 NE2d 1337 ; Estate of Greenwood, 402 Pa Super 536, 587 A2d 749 ; Batcheldor v Boyd, 108 NC App 275, 423 SE2d 810 .) Although nothing in clause (C) prohibits postdeath blood testing, public policy considerations may warrant such a limitation (see, Lalli v Lalli, 439 US 259 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lalli v. Lalli green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In Re Estate of Greenwood green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Alexander v. Alexander
green
1 sentence1993(Cf., Alexander v Alexander, 42 Ohio Misc 2d 30, 537 NE2d 1310 , appeal dismissed 54 Ohio App 3d 77, 560 NE2d 1337 ; Estate of Greenwood, 402 Pa Super 536, 587 A2d 749 ; Batcheldor v Boyd, 108 NC App 275, 423 SE2d 810 .) Although nothing in clause (C) prohibits postdeath blood testing, public policy considerations may warrant such a limitation (see, Lalli v Lalli, 439 US 259 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Weiss v. Fote green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| In re the Estate of Bellinger green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| In re the Estate of Smith green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Hennig v. Goldberg neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| In Re the Arbitration Between National Cash Register Co. & Wilson green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Greene v. Donnelly neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| In re the Arbitration between Local Division 1179, Amalgamated Transit Union & Green Bus Lines, Inc. green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Norris v. Cooper green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Rosemary W. v. Bruce A. neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Lomonaco v. James McKinney & Son, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Foley v. D'Agostino green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Traendly v. State neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Terranova v. Emil green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Bank of New York v. Hirschfeld green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Cohen v. Levine neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Chavers v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Nick Chavers v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| In re the Probate of the Will of Dombek neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.